Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

ROFL. I was thinking the exact same thing!

What about the giant turtles in the front yard! ZOMG

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

What about the giant turtles in the front yard! ZOMG

Look closely, those aren't turtles, IT'S THE BACK OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER SWIMMING UNDER HIS YARD!!!!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Look closely, those aren't turtles, IT'S THE BACK OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER SWIMMING UNDER HIS YARD!!!!

whoever lives there is so F'd

[CRedskinsRule]

people shouldn't joke about black helicopters

[*looks around nervously*]

[MTK]

Shanahan isn't worried about possible bounty sanctions - Washington Times

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Shanahan isn't worried about possible bounty sanctions - Washington Times

Well is he worried about the black helicopters?

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

If I had to guess, it probably has to do with the 'Skins actively restructuring existing contracts to move the cap hit forward into 2010. I suppose, in the other owners' minds that's worse than just signing new contracts and taking a big hit in 2010.

The Haynesworth contract was specifically redone to move later cap hits into 2010. Creative accounting designed specifically to free up future cap space.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for trying to free up future cap space under a cap that may or may not exist in the future is another question, but the 'Skins were trying to shift future cap hit into the uncapped year.

So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

Keep up with the conversation bro. We've been over this whole "Pepper's contract" thing a billion times. The numbers reported were incorrect.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Bottom line, they didn't lose a first rounder... and their situation is much more relevant and significant (with the cover up) vs digging back 5 years to a team that has undergone a total regime change. It's just very doubtful that any picks will be docked. A fine perhaps at the worst. The NFL's ongoing investigation is more about Gregg Williams than it is about the Redskins at this point.

My question is who are they going to punish? GW is gone. Gibbs is gone. Most of the players are gone. I could see the league making DS pay a fine maybe.

But the reason the Saints got hammered is because they were asked 3 times about the issue and 3 times the Saints denied it was happening. Thats why they got hammered so hard. Because they lied.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Keep up with the conversation bro. We've been over this whole "Pepper's contract" thing a billion times. The numbers reported were incorrect.

I'm like Sandtrap though. I don't care how many time HoopheadVII sells it and I know he's right, but what the league did was just wrong. Yes I'm blinded by B&G but still they had 7 months to do something and they waited until 2 hrs prior to FA? They claim they made it clear teams would get punished. Well they probably did but did they explain what the punishment was going to be?

Besides I'm guessing DS and JJ sat their thinking (not together of course) what will they do? they either deny the deals and get themselves into trouble or approve the deals and were golden. The deals got approved. Which is my issue. The league could have said no these contracts won't work per our agreement.

but as Hoop has said they couldn't because then it would have been clear they were breaking the law in collusion. To me everything else is superfluous, they made an illegal agreement that at the time had it been known they would have gotten into trouble. The Redskins and Cowboys chose not to break the law. You either reward that or you punish that but I'm telling you by punishing the Redskins and Cowboys their presenting an image that its ok to cheat (the players) and steal (from the players) and break the law (collusion) and if anyone (owners, players) does not want to go along with the program they will punish them (players-lowered CAP) (Redskins/Cowboys-CAP space).

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I think it's more like this:

- CBA is negotiated in 2006 with potential uncapped year at end

- Uncapped year means teams can spend whatever they want that year

- NFL and NFLPA agree in principle that uncapped year can't be used to dump salary cap hit from previous or later capped years

- Several specific rules are written into 2006 CBA to prevent this

- League exercises early termination option and 2010 becomes uncapped year

- League reminds clubs of agreed principle that uncapped year can't be used to dump salary cap hit. Apparently multiple times.

- Skins find way to dump future salary cap hit into uncapped 2010 in new way not previously considered.

- Multiple other owners complain to Commissioner

- Commissioner leaves it for later because he's more concerned with getting new CBA done

- Commissioner eventually takes action. Since the action the owners want him to take is outside his direct authority, he gets MCEC to agree it with the NFLPA and let an owner be the face of it.

- Chaos ensues

Frankly, I hope enough chaos ensues that they will reduce the penalties to put an end to it. I think that's our best case scenario (other than this escalting to the point where Snyder is forced to sell the Skins).

However, they are not punishing the Skins for spending too much in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for violating a principle apparently agreed with the NFLPA and apparently agreed amongst the owners.

This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In most cases that mechanism works fine, simply because it is a small group and everyone needs to parlay support at one point in time. No big deal, and the 3/4's is a super majority needed to sustain any type of decision. If something else were to come before them in that circle, that didn't have an already filed arbitration brief, I am certain that the vote would be much less unanimous. I think the fact that even the Saints and Raiders approved it, when they were somewhat punished, shows that there was more at play than just the merits of the case.

I thought we were an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune?

We take turns to act as a sort of Executive Officer for the week.
and all decisions of that officer have to be ratified
at a special bi-weekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of Internal Affairs.
But by a 2/3rd's majority......

What was Goodell waiting for some woman lying in a pond to toss a schimitar at him?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.

I think when HoopheadVII listed that, it was more or less him assuming this is what happened. But, commonsense would tell you it would be an odd statement for the CBA to say 2010 is an uncapped year, but you should still treat it as a capped year. Number one, I doubt the owners would go for such a thing, and number two, it makes no logical sense.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

As best I can tell, 6.5 of that 20 in year 1 is signing bonus - which is spread over the life of the contract.

Salary + other non-signing bonuses in year 1 is 13.5, and 11.4 in year 2. Drop is less than 30%, so it's ok.

Spotrac seems to have it wrong - they entered 20m in two different places in year 1, and he didn't get 40.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.

You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.